The U.S. presidential nomination system comes in for considerable criticism, even ridicule, for its wearying length and complexity. The reality is that both serve as virtues. Monday’s Iowa caucuses finally dealt Donald Trump a much-needed, long-delayed setback. And not by accident.
The primary/caucus system is long and complicated on purpose. It means a candidate can’t just be good at one thing, whether rabble-rousing, schmoozing or fund-raising. To win you have to fire up the base, attract the uncommitted, impress the thoughtful and inspire the downhearted. You have to appeal to outsiders and insiders, demonstrating a capacity to shake things up, combined with reasonably sound judgement and electability. A Trump-like talent for attracting attention can lead to success in public opinion polls, but it’s the outcome on the ground — among those who take the time to study issues and turn out to vote — that influences and builds broader public support.
Some primaries require voters to be a registered member of a party; others allow anyone to vote; still others exclude only registered members of the other party; and a fourth allows voters to fill in either party’s ballot but not both. Caucuses, meanwhile, filter candidates through a sieve designed to eliminate casual participants by requiring voters to sit through discussions that can go on for hours, in poorly heated facilities filled with uncomfortable chairs.
It’s a complex and demanding feedback system that tests intelligence, character and stamina, and rightly so. It punishes one-dimensional candidates, whether overly polished insiders or mavericks skilled at engaging the disgruntled with a colourful personality and deep pockets. It simultaneously weeds out the no-hopers while working against coronations.
Indeed, Iowa has not merely checked Trump’s momentum, offering Republicans a choice between brash conservative Ted Cruz (27.7 per cent), Trump (24.3 per cent) and smooth, ambitious Marco Rubio (a very strong third at 23.1 per cent). It has also delivered a stinging setback to Hillary Clinton, who won by a fraction of a percentage point against socialist Bernie Sanders, an outsider as unlikely as Trump, if more consistent and less obnoxious.
Sanders’ limited national appeal undermines his claim to the nomination. But neither has Clinton yet demonstrated her claim to the party banner, given her inability to convincingly defeat a socialist senator from a marginal state. In the end, however, the Democrats will likely run a stronger presidential campaign because the primary system will force them either to address the gulf in the party between elite insiders and the disgruntled, or risk losing a winnable election.
The virtues of the system don’t stop with the nominations. To win the presidency, the Electoral College system requires candidates to attract support in a lot of states, which prevents parties from using unduly divisive stands to pile up votes in core constituencies. The whole thing is a remarkable tribute to diversity in action.
In Canada, recent leadership votes have opted for participation by as many people as possible, no matter how tenuous their commitment to the party, while deliberately limiting the influence of seasoned insiders. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was chosen to lead the Liberal party by just such an approach. While it may artificially boost participation rates for the duration of the contest, the dangers were made evident in Britain when the Labour party threw open its doors to anyone willing to pay a small fee, and found itself saddled with the unelectable firebrand Jeremy Corbyn as a result.
In The Wisdom of Crowds, author James Surowiecki argues that while large groups of non-specialists are often better than “experts” at choosing among alternatives, they are less capable at assembling the alternatives in the first place. A hybrid process, heavy on insiders, that winnows down the field for a vote by the people at large is the best way to conduct elections.
It’s what the U.S. has. And fortunately, it produced a much-needed challenge to Donald Trump’s demagogic march to the White House.
National Post